Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Chandrawati Sharma And Ors. … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 29 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 06.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.1327 of 2022
Smt. Chandrawati Sharma and Ors. ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Bharat Tewari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicants have challenged the impugned order dated
12.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in
Criminal Case No.1547 of 2021 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri
Pramod Kumar and Ors., punishable under Section 406
IPC, as well as the impugned order dated 08.07.2022
passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/
Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of
2022 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma
and Ors., under Section 406 IPC, whereby, the learned
Magistrate issued bailable warrants against the applicants
and the entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal
Complaint Case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2 and applicant No.4 got married on 19.01.2012 as per
Hindu Rites and Rituals and on 23.12.2014, she was
ousted from her matrimonial house by the applicants on
account of bringing less dowry. The entire Streedhan was
kept by the applicants for themselves. She had also sent
2
them a legal notice on 22.02.2021, but did not receive any
reply from them. Thereafter, a complaint was made by the
respondent No.2 on 13.04.2021 against the applicants and
the learned Additional CJM, Kashipur, after recording the
statements of complainant-respondent No.2 under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took
cognizance of the offence under Section 406 IPC against the
applicants and summoned them for trial vide order dated
12.10.2021.
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicants
submits that applicant No.1 is mother in-law, applicant
No.2 is sister in-law (Nanad), applicant No.3 is sister in-law
(Jethani) and applicant No.4 is husband, of the respondent
No.2. She vehemently argues that the learned CJM has
erred in law, as after bare perusal of material on record, no
prima-facie case could be established against the
applicants. She further submits that respondent No.2 was
a Government Teacher and after solemnization of marriage
with applicant No.4, she started pressurizing him to leave
his house and to live separately with her at her place of
posting. She also submits that when applicant No.4
refused, respondent No.2 started threatening him with dire
consequences by filing false cases against him and his
family. She further contends that respondent No.2 had
already taken back all her Streedhan with her, when she
had left the matrimonial house.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant
contends that respondent No.2 also has a mental condition,
for which she is undergoing regular treatment. Respondent
No.2 was also suspended from her school by the District
Education Officer, on grounds of financial irregularity, not
discharging her duties and acts of violence against a
student, which indicate that she has temperament issues.
She further contends that an FIR No.51 of 2015 dated
3
11.02.2015 was also lodged by the respondent No.2 against
the applicant No.4 and his family members, in which,
everyone except applicant No.4 was exonerate, which
clearly shows that the present application is yet another
means of falsely implicating the applicants.
5. She also contends that respondent No.2 chose
not to live with her husband i.e. applicant No.4 out of her
own volition and applicant No.4 had also filed a petition for
divorce in the year 2019, which was granted. She also
submits that it is pertinent to note that in the FIR lodged
by respondent No.2 in the year 2015, there was no mention
of Streedhan being retained by the applicants and all of a
sudden after seven years, this allegation has been made in
the present complaint.
6. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the
applicants that the present summoning order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside,
as the complaint is instituted by respondent No.2 after a
delay of seven years, which is time barred as per the
provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the learned Additional CJM, Kashipur only after recording
the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2 under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202
Cr.P.C., took cognizance upon the applicants and rightly
summoned them.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, relying
upon the counter affidavit, submits that respondent No.2
did not take any of her belongings from her matrimonial
house. He also submits that respondent No.2 was
subjected to immense cruelty and pain at the hands of
applicants and she was eventually forced to leave her
matrimonial house. He further contends that an FIR was
also lodged by the respondent No.2 against the applicants
4
under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which charge-sheet has
been submitted against the applicant No.4.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 that a notice was sent to the applicants on
22.02.2021, which is prior to the filing of the complaint
under Section 406 IPC, and therefore, a fresh period of
limitation shall begin to rum and therefore, this will be a
continuing offence and provision of Section 472 Cr.P.C. will
attracted in the present case. Therefore, the complaint is
not barred by limitation.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the entire material available on record, this
Court is of the view that it is evident from the facts of the
case that more than seven years have elapsed from the date
of alleged offence against the applicants, which is way more
than the prescribed limitation period under Section 468
Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court opines that the continuation
of proceedings would be an abuse process of law against
the applicants. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the
marriage between respondent No.2 and applicant No.4 has
already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, therefore, it
would not be in the interest of justice to permit the
continuation of criminal proceedings, which would only
result in extended litigation. Furthermore, keeping in view
the advanced age of other applicants and the fact that
respondent No.2 and applicant No.4 are no longer in a
matrimonial relationship, the continuation of these
proceedings against the applicants would only amount to
unnecessary harassment.
11. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
12.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in
5
Criminal Case No.1547 of 2021 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri
Pramod Kumar and Ors., punishable under Section 406
IPC, as well as the impugned order dated 08.07.2022
passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/
Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of
2022 Smt. Seema Sharma Vs. Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma
and Ors., under Section 406 IPC, as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Complaint
Case No.310 of 2022, shall stand quashed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.08.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02
NEGI
76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84
BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.29 15:09:35 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link